Roundup Pilaa Kehon Solunjakamis-

It is unfortunate that Monsanto’s counsel would deliberately make a false statement and try to misrepresent the facts.

Monsanto oli jo kerran haastanut Percy Smithin oikeuteen koska hänen pellon laidalta, tien vierestä, löytyi Roundup-Ready tuotetta kasvamassa.. Nyt se on tapahtunut uudelleen.

Olisiko motiivina pitää Percy oikeus-salissa jotta ei ehdi levittää varoituksia Monsantosta kautta planeetan?

Ilmeisesti Monsanto on taas ajanut kuorma-autollaan ohi jolloin tuuli on levittyänyt Monsanton siemeniä. Tämä on hurjan kannattavaa "liiketoimintaa" vaikkakin täysin rikollista sellaista:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/RRCanola Returns.htm

Rötöksistään.. kirjoitti:

It is unfortunate that Monsanto’s counsel would deliberately make a false statement and try to misrepresent the facts.

Monsanto oli jo kerran haastanut Percy Smithin oikeuteen koska hänen pellon laidalta, tien vierestä, löytyi Roundup-Ready tuotetta kasvamassa.. Nyt se on tapahtunut uudelleen.

Olisiko motiivina pitää Percy oikeus-salissa jotta ei ehdi levittää varoituksia Monsantosta kautta planeetan?

Ilmeisesti Monsanto on taas ajanut kuorma-autollaan ohi jolloin tuuli on levittyänyt Monsanton siemeniä. Tämä on hurjan kannattavaa "liiketoimintaa" vaikkakin täysin rikollista sellaista:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/RRCanola Returns.htm

..silloin oikeus katoaa ja fasismi ruulaa:

"In 1998, Monsanto sued him for patent infringement. They alleged that he had acquired and planted their patented seeds without obtaining a license from them, and that he then sold his harvested seed and further infringed their patent. Ultimately, Monsanto had to take Shmeiser all the way to the Supreme Court where, in a stunning 5-4 decision, Monsanto earned the right, for themselves and all other corporations, to patent life.

The issues the court had to decide were whether genetic patents were valid and with what scope, how exactly would such a patent be infringed, and whether contamination caused by an outside party imposes obligations on the party contaminated.

Shmeiser argued that it should not be possible to patent life. Period. Further, since he never sprayed his crop with Monsanto�s product Roundup, he had not taken advantage of the herbicide-resistant quality of the crop and never benefited in any way from the presence of their patented material in his fields. In other words, he argued that since he didn�t exploit their invention, he could not have infringed Monsanto�s patent. He also argued that he was an innocent bystander: patented material �passively and inadvertently� mixed with his personal property and he should not be held accountable to the patent holder for that.

The court sided with Monsanto on all points and created a huge problem for grain producers. Farmers say that cross-contamination from Monsanto�s products is wide-spread and uncontrollable. Essentially, the court has made individual farmers liable to Monsanto for crop contamination created by Monsanto."

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_19494.shtml

Jos tuote olisi keksitty Neuvostoliitossa,olisi varmaankin viher stallareiden hurrauksen kohde.Varmaankin maistuisi paremmin kuluttajille rikkakasvien maustamat sekä hometta pukkaavat elintarvikkeet.Ainakin vessapaperin kulutus lisääntyisi.